http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 --- Comment #7 from Robin Sheat <robin@catalyst.net.nz> --- (In reply to M. Tompsett from comment #6)
Speaking of other things, how did you determine the subfields? http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/690.html (why not c,d,e?) http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/691.html (why not b?) http://oclc.org/bibformats/en/6xx/696.html (why not u,v,x,y,z?) You get the idea. :)
I know nothing of library stuff, but I would suspect that subject would be applicable to these 6xx fields, like Jared was asking about in comment 2.
And it looks like 696-698 are cut and paste from 700,710,711. And 699 cut and paste from 698. Which is what is implied by comment 3.
The subfields are just based on what was used on the equivalent fields, on the assumption that they were laid out the same. These are all local use fields, there is no strict definition for them according to LoC, and according to OCLC, they are they same. So what's good enough for 650 is good enough for 690, etc. If they're not actually good enough, then that's another bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.